Tree-Rings, Kings, and Old World

Archaeology and Environment:

Papers Presented in Honor of

Peter Ian Kuniholm

Edited by

Sturt W. Manning & Mary Jaye Bruce

Oxbow Books
Oxford and Oakville
Contents

Foreword
A. Colin Renfrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Preface and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Contributors to the Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Bibliography of Peter Ian Kuniholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Peter Kuniholm’s Dendro Time

Fritz H. Schweingruber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Perspective: Archaeology, History, and Chronology from Penn to the Present

and Beyond
James Muhly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Excursions into Absolute Chronology

M. G. L. Baillie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

One Hundred Years of Dendroarchaeology: Dating, Human Behavior, and Past

Climate
Jeffrey S. Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

The Absolute Dating of Wasserburg Buchau: A Long Story of Tree-ring Research

A. Billamboz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Is there a Separate Tree-ring Pattern for Mediterranean Oak?

Tomasz Wazny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Dendrochronological Research at Rosslauf (Bressanone, Italy)

Maria Ivana Pezzo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

The Development of the Regional Oak Tree-ring Chronology from the Roman
Sites in Celje (Slovenia) and Sisak (Croatia)
Aleksandar Durman, Andrej Gaspari, Tom Levanič, Matjaz Novšak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Dendroclimatology in the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean Region

Ramzi Touchan and Malcolm K. Hughes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

A 924-year Regional Oak Tree-ring Chronology for North Central Turkey

Carol B. Griggs, Peter I. Kuniholm, Maryanne W. Newton, Jennifer D. Watkins, and
Sturt W. Manning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
iv

Dendrochronology on Pinus nigra in the Taygetos Mountains, Southern

Peloponnisos
Robert Brandes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Could Absolutely Dated Tree-ring Chemistry Provide a Means to Dating the

Major Volcanic Eruptions of the Holocene?
Charlotte L. Pearson and Sturt W. Manning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Dendrochemistry of Pinus sylvestris Trees from a Turkish Forest

D. K. Hauck and K. Ünlü . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Neutron Activation Analysis of Dendrochronologically Dated Trees

K. Ünlü, P. I. Kuniholm, D. K. Hauck, N. Ö. Cetiner, and J. J. Chiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Third Millennium BC Aegean Chronology: Old and New Data from the
Perspective of the Third Millennium AD
Ourania Kouka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies

Sofia Voutsaki, Albert J. Nijboer, and Carol Zerner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Absolute Age of the Uluburun Shipwreck: A Key Late Bronze Age Time-Capsule
for the East Mediterranean
Sturt W. Manning, Cemal Pulak, Bernd Kromer, Sahra Talamo, Christopher Bronk Ramsey,
and Michael Dee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

How About the Pace of Change for a Change of Pace?

Jeremy B. Rutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Archaeologists and Scientists: Bridging the Credibility Gap

Elizabeth French and Kim Shelton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Central Lydia Archaeological Survey: Documenting the Prehistoric through

Iron Age periods
Christina Luke and Christopher H. Roosevelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

The Chronology of Phrygian Gordion

Mary M. Voigt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

The End of Chronology: New Directions in the Archaeology of the Central

Anatolian Iron Age
Geoffrey D. Summers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

The Rise and Fall of the Hittite Empire in the Light of Dendroarchaeological
Research
Andreas Müller-Karpe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Aegean Absolute Chronology: Where did it go wrong?

Christos Doumas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

The Thera Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Cold Fusion: The Uneasy Alliance of History and Science

Malcolm H. Wiener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
 Contents v

Santorini Eruption Radiocarbon Dated to 1627–1600 BC: Further Discussion

Walter L. Friedrich, Bernd Kromer, Michael Friedrich, Jan Heinemeier, Tom Pfeiffer, and
Sahra Talamo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Dating the Santorini/Thera Eruption by Radiocarbon: Further Discussion (AD

2006–2007)
Sturt W. Manning, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Walter Kutschera, Thomas Higham,
Bernd Kromer, Peter Steier, and Eva M. Wild . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Thera Discussion
Malcolm H. Wiener, Walter L. Friedrich, and Sturt W. Manning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute
Chronologies

Sofia Voutsaki, Albert J. Nijboer, and Carol Zerner

Abstract: This paper will present the first results of the radiocarbon analysis of human bones from Middle
Helladic sites in the Argolid. The main aim of the analysis is to provide a coherent set of radiocarbon data
from several sites and from all sub-phases of the MH period. In this paper we concentrate on the results from
Lerna, and we discuss the problems arising when integrating relative and absolute dates. It is the first time
that a systematic large-scale program of 14 C analyses from MH sites has been undertaken; in fact, the mainland
has been largely ignored in the recent chronological debate in Aegean prehistory. We therefore hope that our
analyses will not only refine the MH sequence, but will also add a new dimension to the debates surrounding the
chronology of the Aegean Bronze Age.

1. Introduction
This paper presents the results of radiocarbon analy-
sis from human skeletal material from Middle Helladic
(hereafter MH) Lerna, and discusses the problems
arising when comparing and integrating sequences of
absolute and relative dates. The radiocarbon analy-
sis presented here is part of a wider interdisciplinary
project: the MH Argolid Project, financed by the
Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research and
the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. The
aim of the wider project is to reconstruct the social
organization of MH communities and to interpret the
important social, political and cultural changes that
took place in the southern Greek mainland during the
MH period and the transition to the LH (see Vout-
saki 2005; and http://www.MHArgolid.nl). This is
being pursued by means of an integrated analysis of
funerary, skeletal, and settlement data from the MH
Argolid. The radiocarbon analysis is part of the exam-
ination of the funerary data, as the samples analyzed
have been taken from human remains.
2. The Analysis
2.1 Introduction
Before presenting the aims and methods of the anal-
ysis, we would like to start with some introductory
remarks on the position of radiocarbon analysis in
Aegean prehistory. Despite the fact that significant
progress has been made in this field, there are still
serious problems that hamper the integration of rel-
ative and absolute dates in the Aegean. It has been
pointed out already several times (i.e. Manning 1996:
29) that collaboration between archaeologists and sci-
entists rarely occurs. Radiocarbon analyses are often
placed in an Appendix at the end of the final publi-
cation, but are not really integrated into the research
design of archaeological projects (although notable ex-
ceptions exist). Second, the coverage of the different
periods is very uneven: while there is a substantial
number of measurements for the Early Bronze Age
(Manning 1995), there are very few dates for the ear-
lier part of the Middle Bronze Age. Again, this was
stressed already in the 1970s (Cadogan 1978: 20),
but three decades later the situation has changed only
marginally (see also Manning 1996: 30). The situation
is better in MB III and especially in LB I (Höflmayer
2005) because of the debate surrounding the eruption
of the Thera volcano; not surprisingly, there are fewer
dates from the later part of the LBA (Wiener 1998;
Manning and Weninger 1992). In addition, the cov-
erage of different regions is clearly uneven: there are
many dates from the Cyclades, but by far the ma-
jority comes from Akrotiri. There are considerably
fewer measurements from Crete, while the mainland
has remained virtually absent from the chronological
debates in Aegean archaeology (Manning 2005: 113).
Moreover, there are many sporadic measurements,
rarely more than one or two from sites that have been
152 Voutsaki et al.

Lerna Blackburn
13
Sample Grave No. Grave No. Skel No. Age BP δ(‰) %C
GrA-28046 BD 27 12 Lerna 103 3830 ±35 -19.21 42.1
GrA-28051 BD 14 32 Lerna 91 3730 ±35 -19.08 43.1
GrA-28213 DE 71 and 25 Lerna 239 3640 ±45 -19.70 43.8
72 (double burial;
239 buried first)
GrA-28054 D 22 47 Lerna 52 3595 ±35 -19.28 41.4
GrA-28053 BD 9 123 Lerna 87 3595 ±35 -19.38 41.0
GrA-28045 H1 136 Lerna 31 3585 ±35 -20.30 41.1
GrA-28050 BD 19 80 Lerna 95 3560 ±35 -19.00 43.3
GrA-28039 A1 152 Lerna 2 3545 ±35 -19.15 42.2
GrA-28048 BD 21 79 Lerna 97 3535 ±35 -19.67 42.8
GrA-28041 D 20 52 Lerna 50 3530 ±35 -19.74 41.8
GrA-28044 B 13 58 Lerna 44 3520 ±35 19.56 42.2
GrA-28040 D9 182 Lerna 28 3510 ±35 -19.50 43.0
GrA-28159 DE 55 100 Lerna 198 3510 ±40 -19.44 40.7
GrA-28211 J5 63 Lerna 218 3510 ±50 -19.96 41.9
GrA-28043 DE 64 103 Lerna 204 3495 ±40 -20.05 43.9
GrA-28157 BE 30 22 Lerna 137 (5 3475 ±40 -19.50 39.9
skeletons buried
at once)
GrA-28160 J4 A 84 Lerna 216 3440 ±40 -19.77 40.8
(double burial;
216 upper
grave; later)

Table 1: The quality of the 14 C results. Please note: the Laboratory Sample Number is followed by the Lerna Grave Number to
allow easy identification of the archaeological context.

extensively excavated over longer periods, but very
few series of measurements and even fewer complete
sequences. Again, this situation was lamented in the
1970s (Betancourt and Weinstein 1976: 330; Betan-
court et al. 1978: 202) but has not really been rectified
(Manning 1996: 29). Many of the old measurements
are not always reliable, as they were taken before the
significant improvements in radiocarbon dating pro-
cedures (Manning 1998: 301). Finally, very few ra-
diocarbon dates come with good and extensive con-
textual information. While there is a lot of discussion
about short-lived (e.g. seeds) versus long-lived sam-
ples (e.g. wood, charcoal), less attention is paid to
the fact that a sample may come from inside a floor,
from the floor deposit, or from the destruction layer
above the floor—but these are significant differences
that need to be taken into account when integrating
absolute and relative dates. Once more, this problem
has been raised repeatedly (i.e. Betancourt and We-
instein: 331; see also pertinent remarks by Whitelaw
1996: 233).
We see therefore that these problems have been
recognized since the 1970s, but there are still few sys-
tematic and problem-oriented programs of 14 C analy-
sis in Aegean prehistory. Our project hopes to redress
this situation: We are undertaking an extensive pro-
gram of analyses, taking a series of samples from dif-
ferent MH sites in the Argolid. We sample six burials
from each sub-phase of the MH period (i.e. 6 from
MH I, 6 from MH II, 6 from MH III), and we try
to include burials that can be placed in the earlier or
later part of each sub-phase (though this is not always
possible). In this way, we can set up a compendium of
dates for all the sites we are studying and reconstruct
whole sequences for the entire MH period. While here
we present only the results from Lerna, we are sam-
pling all sites with a substantial number of burials.
So far we have taken 19 samples from Lerna, 7 from
Argos-Aspis, 12 from Asine-East cemetery, and 9 from
Asine-Barbouna (the cemeteries in Aspis and Asine
are not in use throughout the MH period, hence the
smaller number of samples). We also plan to analyze
skeletons from the Argos “tumuli,” and possibly the
prehistoric cemeteries at Mycenae and Midea.
We analyze human bones, and thereby avoid the
problems encountered when analyzing long-lived ma-
terials such as wood or charcoal. By sampling human
skeletons (more often than not from single burials)
 Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies
Lerna Blackburn
Sample Grave No. Grave No.
GrA-28261 B 21A 88
Table 2: Result with deficient quality parameters.
rather than wood, charcoal, or seeds found in settle-
ment layers, we date a specific depositional episode
rather than settlement deposits which may have ac-
cumulated over a period of unknown duration (Ni-
jboer and van der Plicht 2008). We use the AMS
(Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) rather than the con-
ventional 14 C method; the latter may be more accu-
rate, but it requires much larger samples (250g ver-
sus 5g necessary when using the AMS method). We
decided to use AMS because of the need to preserve
the Lerna skeletal assemblage for future generations
of researchers. The analyses have been carried out at
the Centre of Isotope Research, University of Gronin-
gen (for requirements see Nijboer and van der Plicht
2008).
We take samples exclusively from well excavated
and extensively documented cemeteries, and notably
from well preserved tombs which can be dated with
reasonable accuracy. In the case of Lerna, in partic-
ular, we sample only tombs with clear stratigraphic
contexts whose relative date has been carefully con-
trolled (and sometimes revised) by Carol Zerner. Of
course, we should not underestimate the complexity
of the MH sequence at Lerna; we are dealing with a
large intramural cemetery with a complex history of
use (Blackburn 1970; Zerner 1978), and with several
areas used interchangeably for burial and for habi-
tation (Milka, in press). This situation has certain
advantages, as many graves have clear stratigraphic
associations with earlier or later houses. However,
these stratigraphic associations may sometimes pro-
vide only a terminus ante or post quem. In effect,
when integrating absolute and relative dates, we com-
pare two ranges of possible dates: just as 14 C dates
come with a certain margin of error, the relative date
of a grave may also sometimes span more than one
ceramic sub-phase (e.g. a grave may be MH I or MH
II early). Interpreting radiocarbon dates in an archae-
ological context involves precisely this: trying to rec-
oncile two ranges of possible dates. Therefore, slight
modifications of the relative date in the light of ra-
diocarbon results are permissible—as long as we stay
within the range dictated by both the stratigraphy of
the site and the 14 C measurements.
153
13
Skel No. Age BP δ(‰) %C
Lerna 67 3700 ±45 -23.50 0.8
2.2 The Results
The quality of the radiocarbon data, as can be seen in
Table 1, is good (for a definition of quality parameters,
see Nijboer and van der Plicht 2008).
Only one sample from Lerna (Table 2) did not con-
tain any collagen and the measurement was based on
the residue. This sample has not been included in the
analysis.
It should also be added that we have carried out an
extensive program of stable isotopes analysis (we have
sampled 48 burials from MH Lerna alone) in order
to establish the diet of the MH population in Lerna
(see Voutsaki et al., in press; Triantaphyllou et al.
2008). The results, in particular the rather low δ15
N values, allow us to establish that the inhabitants
of Lerna did not rely on marine resources during the
MH period. In this way, we can rule out the “reservoir
effect” (Lanting and van der Plicht 1998) and increase
confidence in the accuracy of our results (Figure 2).
2.3. Discussion of the results
The aims of the analysis are to increase the chrono-
logical resolution of the analysis of funerary and set-
tlement data, and to refine the MH chronological se-
quence. What we want to achieve is a more accurate
definition of both the boundaries of the MH period
and its internal sub-divisions. Therefore, the discus-
sion here will proceed by examining one by one the
chronological divisions of the MH period. Figure 2,
which presents once more the results of the analysis,
as well as an indication of their relative date, will be
the basis of the discussion.
(i) The EH III/MH I boundary The accepted date
for the beginning of the MBA has been placed in
2100/2000 bc, i.e. around or just before the begin-
ning of the 2nd millennium (Cadogan 1978: 213; War-
ren and Hankey 1989: 124; Manning 1995). We have
taken three measurements from tombs which had a
MH I relative date: the results from DE 71 & 72 and
BD 14 fall clearly within the accepted range, but sug-
gest that the beginning of the period should be placed
around 2100 bc rather than at 2000 bc. In contrast,
the result from BD 27 (Figure 3), the burial of a child
of 2-3 years old accompanied by a one-handled cup
154 Voutsaki et al.

Figure 1: The results of the analysis.

 Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies 155

Figure 2: The results of the analysis: relative and absolute dates.

(Figure 4), has a range of 2460-2140 bc at 2σ proba-
bility level (95.4%) (Figure 5). While the grave had at
first been dated to MH I, possibly MH I early, its ab-
solute date suggests that it may have to be placed ear-
lier, i.e. in the late EH III period, or in the transition
between EH III/MH I. Indeed the cup could perfectly
well belong to the EH III period. A renewed exam-
ination of the stratigraphic context by Carol Zerner
concluded that a date in late EH III or in the EH
III/MH I transition is equally acceptable.
We see therefore that the absolute dates may some-
times be used to reconsider the relative date, as long
as one has confidence in the sample and its context—
otherwise, we may enter a circular argument, as has
often been done in the past. As we stressed above,
the relative dating often covers a certain range, espe-
cially when (as is so often the case in the MH period)
the grave contains either no diagnostic offerings, or
no offerings whatsoever. As we stressed above, the in-
tegration of relative and “absolute” dates is often an
exercise in comparing and attempting to reconcile two
ranges of possible dates.
(ii) The MH I/MH II division The beginning of
the MH II period is placed probably around 1900 bc
(Dietz 1991: 317; Rutter 2001: 106). The Lerna re-
sults confirm this: all three MH I measurements lie
before 1900 bc. We could therefore tentatively con-
clude that the MH I period lasts approximately from
2100 to 1900 bc. Some caution is of course necessary,
as we have only very few measurements from the MH I
period. In order to corroborate this date, we ought to
take more samples from MH I burials. Unfortunately,
outside Lerna, EH III–MH I burials have been found
only during the old excavations in the Lower Town of
156 Voutsaki et al.

MH II house confirms this date. The 14 C result (Fig-

ure 8) has a range of 2020–1770 bc at 2σ probability
level (95.4%) which is compatible with a date in MH
III, but cannot exclude a date in MH II.
In contrast, BE 30, a pit grave containing five buri-
als which seem to have been buried simultaneously, is
quite firmly dated in MH II: it was opened into the ru-
ins of a MH I–II house, while in MH III another house
was built on top. However, the result of 1900–1680 bc
at 2σ probability level (Figure 9) is compatible with
a date in MH II, but cannot exclude a MH III date.
The inability to distinguish the MH II and MH
III periods in the absolute sequence and the rather
broad range of 14 C dates has to do with the shape of
Figure 3: Child burial in grave BD 27.
the calibration curve in this period and the relatively
short duration of these sub-phases. Here we evidently
reach the limits of precision of the radiocarbon method
(see Warren 1996: 283–284; admitted also by Manning
1996: 30) which may be overcome only with the use
of Bayesian statistics.
Therefore, while there are important differences
between MH II and MH III in terms of ceramic
changes and historical developments, the MH II–III
boundary cannot be accurately defined in our analy-
sis. It should be emphasized that we encounter the
same problem in Asine–East Cemetery which is also
in use in MH II and MH III (Voutsaki et al., in press).
We may be able to move forward by concentrating on
the burials whose relative dates are most secure and by
combining measurements from different graves belong-
ing to the same phase. However, there are problems:
despite widespread practice, this procedure is not re-
ally statistically valid. It should also be stressed that
Figure 4: One-handled cup found in BD 27.
defining what constitutes a most secure context is not
straightforward. There are cases where stratigraphic
associations are quite secure, as in the graves in Lerna
Asine (Frödin and Persson 1938; Nordquist 1987), but
that are in use after a house is abandoned and before
the skeletons from those excavations have gone miss-
a new house is built in the same location. The situa-
ing. While we could sample more EH III burials from
tion in extramural cemeteries is very different. While
Lerna, they are all neonates and may not be suitable
there are fewer stratigraphic restrictions, extramural
for 14 C analysis. Needless to say, we also need to com-
graves sometimes (but not always) contain more (and
pare the Lerna analysis with results recently obtained
more diagnostic) offerings, as they date mostly to late
from contemporary sites, e.g. Kolonna in Aegina (for
MH II and MH III. Therefore, separating the most
the results of the recent investigations see Gauss and
securely dated graves is not an easy task; we have to
Smetana, in press).
accept that there are degrees of certainty and accuracy
(iii) The MH II/MH III division is dated 1750–
in relative dating. This is an important point, which
1720 bc by Manning (1995), while Dietz places the
should be taken into account when combining mea-
transition around 1800 bc (Dietz 1991: 317). Unfor-
surements or applying different statistical methods on
tunately, the Lerna results cannot help us decide on
groups of measurements.
this issue: the results fall too close together and we
(iv) The MH III/LHI boundary. The duration
therefore cannot distinguish between MH II and MH
of the MH III period and the transition to the LH
III. Two examples can illustrate the problem: BD 19
I period are heavily debated. Establishing synchro-
(Figure 6), a cist grave containing an adult man buried
nisms between the mainland and Minoan Crete is not
with a Cycladic jug (Figure 7) and a strainer jug, is
straightforward (Girella, in press); in fact, the Cretan
firmly dated in MH III because of the shape of the jug;
sequence itself in MMIII–LMI is subject to debate (see
in addition, the fact that the grave is opened above a
 Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies 157

Figure 5: 14 C result from grave BD 27.

Figure 6: Adult man buried in grave BD 19. Figure 7: Cycladic jug from BD 19.
158 Voutsaki et al.

Figure 8: 14 C result from grave BD 19.

Figure 9: 14 C result from grave BE 30.

 Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies
papers in Felten et al. 2007). On the other hand, there
are few secure synchronisms with the Near East (Man-
ning 1996: 17). According to the “Low Chronology”
(Warren and Hankey 1989; Warren 1996; Bietak 2003;
Wiener 2003) the transition takes place around 1600
bc, while the “High Chronology” (Betancourt 1987;
most recent results, Manning et al. 2006) places it
around 1700 bc.
All Lerna samples from graves with a relative date
in MH III (5 samples) produce results which are earlier
than 1700 bc. The only grave to cross the 1700 bc
boundary (Figure 12) is J 4A, a semi-cist grave with
an adult man (Figure 10) accompanied by a rather
undiagnostic bowl (Figure 11). The grave is dated to
the “Shaft Grave era,” i.e. MH III–LH I, because of its
stratigraphic associations (the grave is opened partly
on top of MH II grave J 4B).
Figure 10: Adult man buried in grave J 4A.
These results may render support to the “High
Chronology” (Manning et al. 2006). But again
some caution is necessary: we have only five measure-
ments from Lerna, and there are few other comparable
measurements from the mainland. The results from
Tsoungiza are rather inconsistent (Bronk Ramsey et
al. 2004), while many graves in Asine-East Cemetery
span precisely this transition MH III–LH I. The Asine
results cannot be discussed here in detail, but it should
be pointed out that in Asine the relative date of graves
is less secure: we are dealing with extramural graves
which have fewer stratigraphic associations, while at
the same time they rarely contain diagnostic offerings
(see Voutsaki et al., in press).
159
Figure 11: Bowl from J 4A.
3. Summary and Conclusions
We have suggested that the MH I period lasted from
2100 to 1900 bc. If we accept that the MH III period
finished around 1700 bc, then the date proposed by
Dietz for MH II (1900–1800 bc) seems preferable. We
need to be aware, of course, that this suggestion is
based more on common sense than on actual results.
If we want to summarize our results, we come up with
the sub-divisions presented in Table 3. It cannot be
emphasized enough that these sub-divisions are only
tentative, as the analysis is still in progress.
MH I 2100?–1900 B.C.
MH II 1900–1800? B.C.
MH III 1800?–1700 B.C.
Table 3: Tentative sub-divisions of the MH period
To conclude: the radiocarbon analysis of MH buri-
als from Lerna has produced a tight and coherent se-
quence with a good correspondence between absolute
and relative dates. Therefore, despite the considerable
difficulties encountered when integrating relative and
absolute chronologies, progress can be made—even if,
in the particular case, we have not been able to distin-
guish the MH II from the MH III burials. The case we
are dealing with, the Middle Bronze Age mainland, is
particularly difficult because there are problems with
both the relative and the absolute sequences. On the
one hand, the stratigraphic problems in both intra-
mural and extramural cemeteries, the rarity of offer-
ings in the graves, the uneven (and imperfectly under-
stood) rate of change in MH ceramics, the differences
in the ceramic assemblages between regions and even
between sites in the same region, and the difficulties
in establishing synchronisms with the Minoan or Cy-
cladic sequences mean that relative dating is rather
insecure. On the other hand, the shape of the calibra-
tion curve in this period, the relatively short duration
160 Voutsaki et al.
Figure 12: 14 C
of the sub-phases of the MH period, but also the rar-
ity of comparative data and the virtual absence of sys-
tematic programs of radiocarbon analysis in the MH
mainland add to the inherent problems of applying the
radiocarbon method (discussed by Warren 1998: 324;
Wiener 2003). We therefore have to adopt a balanced
approach, and try to avoid the polarization which has
characterized in recent years the debate surrounding
the chronology of the Aegean Bronze Age. Both rel-
ative and absolute dates come with a certain range;
neither method is infallible, and neither method is
fully precise. However, progress can be made and
the two sets of data can be integrated, if we under-
take systematic, extensive, and problem-oriented pro-
grams of analyses, and if we consider the nature of
the samples—and their archeological contexts—very
closely.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Sturt Manning for inviting
us to participate in the Conference in honour of Pe-
ter Kuniholm, which proved a very stimulating and
(largely thanks to Peter Kuniholm’s contagious en-
thusiasm!) deeply enjoyable event. Further thanks to
the entire team at Cornell, and particularly to Mary
Jaye Bruce, for their hospitality.
We are grateful to the Netherlands Organization
of Scientific Research and the University of Gronin-
result from grave J 4A.
gen, the Netherlands, for their generous funding of
the MH Argolid Project. We would like to express our
thanks to the successive Ephors of the 4th Ephorate of
Classical and Prehistoric Antiquities, Mrs. Zoi Asla-
matzidou and Mrs. Anna Banaka, as well as the De-
partment of Conservation, Greek Ministry of Culture,
for granting us a permit to re-examine and sample
the MH burials from Lerna. We thank the American
School of Classical Studies, as well as Dr. M. Wiencke,
Dr. C. Zerner, and Dr. E. Banks for granting us per-
mission to study and sample the Lerna skeletons. We
would also like to acknowledge the assistance of the
staff at the 4th Ephorate, particularly Dr. Alkistis
Papadimitriou. The personnel in the Museum of Ar-
gos have been extremely helpful; we thank them all.
We are grateful to Todd Whitelaw for his insightful
corrections on the first draft. Eleni Milka has assisted
with the tabulation of the contextual data, Tomek
Hertig, the project assistant, has produced the graphs,
and Siebe Boersma has helped with the illustrations.
Finally, we would like to thank the editors for their
patience.
References
Betancourt, P.P. 1987. Dating the Aegean Late Bronze Age
with radiocarbon. Archaeometry 29(1): 45–49.
 Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies
Betancourt, P.P., and Weinstein, G. 1976. Carbon-14 and the
beginning of the LBA in the Aegean. American Journal of
Archaeology 80: 329–348.
Betancourt, P.P., Michael, H.N., and Weinstein, G.A. 1978.
Calibration and the radiocarbon chronology of Late Minoan
1B. Archaeometry 20(2): 200–203.
Bietak, M. 2003. Science versus archaeology: Problems and
consequences of High Aegean Chronology. In M. Bietak
(ed.), The synchronization of civilizations in the eastern
Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C. Proceedings
of the SCIEM 2000—EuroConference, Haindorf, 2–7 May
2001 : 23–33. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften.
Blackburn, E.T. 1970. Middle Helladic graves and burial cus-
toms with special reference to Lerna in the Argolid. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
Bronk Ramsey, C., Manning, S.W., and Galimberti, M. 2004.
Towards high-precision AMS: progress and limitation. Ra-
diocarbon 46(1): 325–344.
Cadogan, G. 1978. Dating the Aegean Bronze Age without
radiocarbon. Archaeometry 20(2): 209–214.
Dietz, S. 1991. The Argolid at the transition to the Mycenaean
Age: Studies in the chronology and cultural development in
the Shaft Grave period. Copenhagen: The National Museum
of Denmark.
Felten, F., Gauss, W., and Smetana, R. (eds.) 2007. Middle
Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the In-
ternational Workshop SCIEM 2000, Salzburg, 31 October–
2 November 2004. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Frödin, O., and Persson, A.W. 1938. Asine. The Results of
the Swedish Excavations, 1922–1930. Stockholm: General-
stabens Litografiska Anstalts Förlag.
Gauss, W., and Smetana, R. In press. Aegina Kolonna in the
Middle Bronze Age. In G. Touchais, A. Philippa-Touchais,
S. Voutsaki, and J. Wright (eds.), MESOHELLADIKA: The
Greek mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. Proceedings of
the International Conference, Athens, 8–12 March 2006.
Supplément, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique.
Girella, L. In press. MH III and MM III: Ceramic synchronisms
in the transition to the Late Bronze Age. In G. Touchais,
A. Philippa-Touchais, S. Voutsaki, and J. Wright (eds.),
MESOHELLADIKA: The Greek mainland in the Middle
Bronze Age. Proceedings of the International Conference,
Athens, 8–12 March 2006. Supplément, Bulletin de Corre-
spondance Hellénique.
Höflmayer, F. 2005. Die absolute Datierung der späten Mit-
telbronzezeit und der frühen Spätbronzezeit in der Ägäis.
Magister Dissertation, University of Vienna.
Lanting, J.N., and van der Plicht, J. 1998. Reservoir effect and
apparent 14 C ages. The Journal of Irish Archaeology IX:
151–165.
Manning, S.W. 1995. The absolute chronology of the Aegean
Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, radiocarbon, and history.
Sheffield: Sheffield University Press.
Manning, S.W. 1996. Dating the Aegean Bronze Age: with-
out, with and beyond, radiocarbon. In K. Randsborg (ed.),
Absolute chronology: Archaeological Europe 2500-500 bc:
15-37. Acta Archaeologica 67. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Manning, S.W. 1998. Aegean and Sardinian Chronology: radio-
carbon, calibration and Thera. In M.S. Balmuth and R.H.
Tykot. (eds.), Sardinian and Aegean Chronology. Towards
the resolution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediter-
ranean. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Med-
ford, Massachusetts, 17–19 March 1995 : 297–307. Studies
in Sardinian Archaeology 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Manning, S.W. 2005. Simulation and the date of the Theran
eruption: outlining what we do and do not know from ra-
161
diocarbon. In A. Dakouri-Hild and S. Sherratt (eds.), AU-
TOCHTHON: Papers presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on
the occasion of his retirement: 97-114. BAR International
Series 1432. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Manning, S.W., and Weninger, B. 1992. A light in the dark:
archaeological wiggle matching and the absolute chronology
of the close of the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity 66: 636–
663.
Manning, S.W., Bronk Ramsey, C., Kutschera, W., Higham,
T., Kromer, B., Steier, P., and Wild, E.M. 2006. Chronol-
ogy for the Aegean late Bronze Age 1700-1400 bc. Science
312(5573): 565–569.
Milka, E. In press. Burials upon the ruins of abandoned houses
in the MH Argolid. In G. Touchais, A. Philippa-Touchais, S.
Voutsaki, and J. Wright (eds.), MESOHELLADIKA: The
Greek mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. Proceedings
of the International Conference, Athens, 8-12 March 2006.
Supplément, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique.
Nijboer, A.J., and van der Plicht, H. 2008. The Iron Age of
the Mediterranean: recent radiocarbon research at the Uni-
versity of Groningen. In D. Brandhern and M. Trachsel
(eds.), A new dawn for the dark Age? Shifting paradigms
in Mediterranean Iron Age chronology. Proceedings of the
XV Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric and
Protohistoric Sciences, Lisbon, 4-9 September 2006 : 103–
118. BAR International Series 1871. Oxford: Archaeo-
press.
Nordquist, G.C. 1987. A Middle Helladic village: Asine in the
Argolid. Boreas, Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean
and Near Eastern Civilization 16. Uppsala.
Rutter, J.B. 2001. Review of Aegean Prehistory II: The
prepalatial Bronze Age of the southern and central Greek
mainland. In T. Cullen (ed.), Aegean Prehistory: a review.
American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1. Boston:
Archaeological Institute of America.
Triantaphyllou, S., Richards, M., Zerner, C., and Voutsaki, S.
2008. Isotopic dietary reconstruction of humans from Mid-
dle Bronze Age Lerna, Argolid, Greece. Journal of Archae-
ological Science 35: 3028–3034.
Voutsaki, S., Dietz, S., and Nijboer, A.J. In press. Radiocar-
bon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine.
Opuscula.
Warren, P. 1996. The Aegean and the limits of radiocarbon dat-
ing. In K. Randsborg (ed.), Absolute chronology: Archae-
ological Europe 2500-500 bc: 283-290. Acta Archaeologica
67. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Warren, P., and Hankey, V. 1989. The absolute chronology of
the Aegean Bronze Age. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.
Whitelaw, T. 1996. Review of Manning, The absolute chronol-
ogy of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, radio-
carbon, and history. Antiquity 70: 232-234.
Wiener, M.H. 1998. The absolute chronology of Late Helladic
IIIA2. In M.S. Balmuth and R.H. Tykot. (eds.), Sardinian
and Aegean Chronology. Towards the resolution of relative
and absolute dating in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of
the International Colloquium, Medford, Massachusetts, 17-
19 March 1995 : 309-319. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology
5. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Wiener, M.H. 2003. Time out: The current impasse in Bronze
Age archaeological dating. In K. Polinger Foster and R.
Laffineur (eds.), METRON. Measuring the Aegean Bronze
Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Confer-
ence, New Haven, 18-21 April 2002 : 363-399. Aegaeum 24.
Liège and Austin.
Zerner, C.W. 1978. The beginning of the Middle Helladic Pe-
riod at Lerna. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
Article submitted July 2007